[pkg-go] Bug#818580: ITP: golang-github-prometheus-client-model -- data model artifacts for Prometheus

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 1:17:27 AM AEDT Martín Ferrari wrote:
> Well, now we have two versions of the same thing in the repository,
> which will need to be maintained separately. We could have instead fixed
> the namespace issue.

There is no drama about that. You can drop duplicated file from your -common 
package since upstream no longer ship it as part of prometheus-common.


> But this goes way further than that:
> 
> * You are packaging the whole upstream tree, which is supposed to
> provide bindings for many different languages, which you are not
> providing, nor the naming of the source package is reflecting.

You are welcome to work on that if you wish.


> * In nomad you are also build-depending on the common library, which
> includes the protobuf. So instead of building a different package you
> could have renamed the protobuf file, or something.

I could but I've chosen to package dependency instead to preserve name space.
Why do you have problem with that?


> * But actually, nomad *does not* use this libraries (I just ran grep -r
> on the source tree). These build-dependenies are spurious, it is
> actually a dependency of golang-github-armon-go-metrics, which uses the
> prometheus client library, which makes all this stuff transparent.

I see... Thanks for explaining. However please note that Nomad-0.3.1 dropped 
some dependencies that I packaged in order to upload 0.3.0.


> Dmitry, I have to be blunt, I find this attitude pretty upsetting, and
> very much not in the spirit of team work..

I hate to bring that argument but I'm not thrilled to be the most active 
maintainer on the team. I need to get things done within very limited time 
that I often borrow heavily from my sleep. Could you please explain to which 
of my actions specifically upset you? Packaging of minor dependency that your 
package provides but really shouldn't?


> IF there was some issue (but there was none), we could have tried to
> find some solution that avoided this.

You are really complaining about minor thing and FYI when I got your email 
I've already uploaded client-model package. I could not take immediate action 
back then (and I dod not seem it neccessary) and when I got back to it 
package was alreadyy accepted. And frankly I'm happy about it.


> You saw the package was a duplicate, and that it was owned by the team
> even, but ignored that.

Could you please elaborate what did you expected me to do?


> It is already the third time I have to tell you that you are about to
> upload a duplicate package because you had not looked before.

Wow. I'm surprised. Could you please kindly refresh my memory about two other 
incidents?


> Please, be
> more careful, otherwise it is the team that will have to pick up the
> pieces of all this.

Sure. No worries.

-- 
All the best,
 Dmitry Smirnov.

---

There is nothing more odious than the majority. It consist of a few
powerful men who lead the way; of accommodating rascals and submissive
weaklings; and of a mass of men who trot after them without in the least
knowing their own minds.
        -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-go-maintainers/attachments/20160323/8bd71f81/attachment.sig>